Comments

It’s no coincidence that most of the “rich” teams also happen to have great scouting, coaching and managing. When the fat cat Yankees started to rely solely on their riches, they weren’t doing so hot. Once that the drafting/scouting/farm system was back up, they started doing better. Rays and Nationals are perennial losers with low salaries, but you can see the difference on the field based on the managing and free agent choices.
Now, as for the tv contracts in the playoffs, just because a city doesn’t have a large market share doesn’t mean that their team won’t make the playoffs. Look at the Rockies/Rays/Phillies/Tigers recently. Philly and Detroit are big, but compared to New York, Los Angeles and Chicago? The Indian injuries and Carmona and bullpen woes weren’t a consequence of their TV revenue or limited salary figures. They -did- sign DeRosa and Wood, only to have one be ineffective and one traded away. Money’s there, just misspent. Otherwise the Cubs woulda won a couple by now.

@David: As Matt points out, it’s all about the playoffs (at least insofaras today’s toon is concerned). While the World Series may not necessarily determined by whoever spend$ the mo$t, playoff appearance seems (if only superficially) to correlate. To me, the media (“TV”) markets just add to that kitty (and, yeah, I think Philly and Detroit compare favorably, size-wise, to markets such as, say, Seattle and Cleveland). That, and I like drawing that Selig guy. Thanks!

@Tuck: Fair enough. Thinking on it, the money does allow you to have the depth you need to go the 162 marathon. Selig does this to himself so often, if he were to write an autobiography he might put cartoonists out of business.